Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.36 seconds)
Zodiac Investment Limited vs Durga Investment And Trading Co. And ... on 14 March, 1988 cites

Sriniwas Sureka vs Madanlal Sekhsaria And Ors. on 28 July, 1972

We are inclined to think that the Division Bench decision in Radhararti (supra) and the Special Bench decision in Sriniwas (supra) are no authorities for the proposition that the tenant ceases to be a tenant for allpurposes immediately with the passing of the decree for eviction against him by the Trial Court and, therefore, prosecutes his appeal against the decree for eviction as a trespasser, so to say.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Satyanarayan Prosad vs Diana Engineering Co. on 29 January, 1951

It has been pointed out in Gojer Brothers (supra) that once an appeal, is filed against a decree, the appellate court would have to confirm, modify or reverse the decree and that and in all these cases the operative decree would be the decree of the appellate court, not only when it reverses or modifies the decree, but even when it confirms it and the decree under appeal would lose its identity and it may be urged that these observations in Gojer Brothers (supra) go to lend considerable support to the observations of this Court in Satyanarayan Prosad (supra) that on an appeal from a decree the matters covered and decided by the decree become "pending matters" and the decree shall obviously stand displaced by the appellate decree, in whichever way the appeal is eventually decided.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1